Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/20/07 Public HearingMINUTES Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 20, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She asked those present to acknowledge the tragic death of Nathan McBryde at Willamette Pass Ski area the previous weekend with a moment of silence, and to reach out to his family. She said it was a loss for the entire community. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: FY08-13 Draft Capital Improvement Program Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County and Homebuilders Construction Company, expressed her organizations’ concern about the $51 million in parks projects included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She said the association supported parks but objected that the City had not acknowledged the impact of its proposed parks acquisitions on the land supply. When the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive (PROS) Plan was remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), that agency ruled the plan could not be a stand-alone document, and at least part of it must be adopted as a refinement plan. LUBA also ruled that if the portion of the PROS plan adopted as a refinement plan did not include a precise estimate of the acreages required for parks, recreation, and open space facilities, it was unlikely the City would be able to justify a Metro Plan parks, recreation, and open space facilities element refinement plan if it failed to included mandatory standards that governed the selection and improvement of individual parks sites in the future. While there were standards in the PROS Plan related to acres-per-thousand residents for different park types, those were not mandatory standards. Ms. Cueller said the City had not dealt with the remand and had no mandatory standards. She thought the inclusion of the parks projects without those standards was in violation of the LUBA remand. Ms. Cueller discussed the issue of local wastewater lines, saying there was a lot of low-density land included in the urban growth boundary west of the city that could not be built on because it did not have services. The Residential Lands Study, acknowledged in 1999, outlined when areas were likely to receive service. Most of the area was slated to have service within seven to ten years, and that time was quickly approach- ing. She said if the council declined to look at the land supply, it should consider extending services. Carlos Barara , Olive Street, asked that the CIP include funding for Washington Park to allow for the conversion of the wading pool to a spray pool so small children could use it during the warm summer months. The Friendly Area Neighborhood Association supported the expenditure. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing Nancy Ellen Locke , Friendly Area Neighborhood Association Executive Committee, asked the council to include funding for a spray pool in Washington Park in the CIP. She recalled that the wading pool was shut down for health and safety reasons and the neighborhood repeatedly told the project was “on the list.” It did not seem fair to be postponed for so many years. She said the park was very important to the neighborhood, and the trash accumulating there was an eyesore. Kevin Matthews , President of the Southeast Neighbors and Friends of Eugene (FOE), said he would like the council to amend the CIP with the staff text reducing the scope and budget of the Dillard Road project to a project development project in the amount of $400,000 in fiscal year 2013. He noted the work done on Dillard Road by the Southeast Neighbors in opposition to a proposed development that involved Lidarscan- ning, a technology which reveals geological faults, and that indicated it was premature to plan a road project in light of geologic hazards and while the fate of the natural area was in doubt. th Jeanne Marie Moore , #5 East 24 Avenue, requested funding for a spray pool in Washington Park. She supported the request because the water could be recycled and the park was important to the neighborhood. Zachary Vishanoff , of Patterson Street, spoke of the importance of saving Civic Stadium from redevelop- ment. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District, and from the Santa Clara Water District Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, she closed the public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Land Use Diagram and Text; Amending Section 9.9580 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; Providing an Effective Date; and Providing a Sunset Date (Jefferson/Far West, MA 06-05, RA 06- 03, CA 06-01) Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. th Renee Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, called the council’s attention to the resolution passed by the neighborhood organization and the petitions signed by area residents submitted in support of the amendments before the council. Ms. Kane briefly discussed the past planning process that led to the establishment of Area 15 and asked that it remain intact. She said there were many families with children living in the area, and if the neighborhood was to have true diversity, such families were necessary and must be accommodated. Triplexes and multiplexes shoehorned into backyards did not foster families or support the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kane suggested there was also the danger of flooding to consider, and reduction of pervious surface through more development would see a rise in water volume in the Amazon Creek. She said neighbors were ready to work on ways to support infill in the neighborhood. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, thanked Terri Harding of the Planning Division for her work on the proposed amendments. He also thanked Mr. Zelenka for accompanying the neighbors on a tour of the neighborhood to view Area 15 and some of the infill properties. Mr. Conte said that the action contemplated was not a downzoning. The plan amendments would remove a major discrepancy between the medium-density designation applied to much of the area and the area’s existing zoning and development. The neighborhood completed detailed research on the area and of the 253 lots in Area 15, one was commercial, two were historic, and all but seven of the remaining lots were zoned R-1, the zone that implemented the proposed low-density residential designation. Mr. Conte said the amendments were temporary in nature and were scheduled to sunset. He called the council’s attention to an e-mail from the chairs of the neighborhood group pointing of that the just-released schedule for the City’s infill compatibility standards process indicated staff did not anticipate such standards being adopted by the July 1, 2008, sunset date in the current version of the ordinance. He requested that the sunset date be adjusted or staff directed to accelerate the schedule for the standards. Mr. Conte said the amendments provide temporary protection against higher density development that might potentially destabilize the neighborhood. Because that projection was urgently needed, he asked the council to revise the ordinance to make the amendments effective upon adoption rather than in 30 days to prevent applications that circumvent the intent of the amendments. He thought the long-term solution for this and other neighborhoods was appropriate infill compatibility standards and an effective opportunity siting process. th Angela Rooney , 520 West 15 Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed amendments. She said the neighborhood was a place where persons living on fixed incomes could afford to live safely. The residents wanted to maintain their neighborhood livability, rather than shut people out of the neighborhood. Virginia Austey , 1540 Jefferson Street, a 19-year resident of Area 15, asked the council to support the proposed amendments that would place a temporary moratorium on incompatible development in the area. She thanked the council and the Planning Commission for the support those bodies had shown the neighborhood to this point. The amendments would allow residents to protect the character of the neighborhood while increasing density. She said that renters with whom she spoke indicated they were drawn to the neighborhood for its unique character. Ms. Austey quoted from an op-ed piece in the Eugene Weekly that stated density and livability were not mutually exclusive, and said the neighborhood was merely requesting time for the development of infill standards that would maintain the character of the neighbor- hood. th David Burkett , 543 West 17 Avenue, pointed out the population of the community had changed little in 20 years. He understood density was desirable, but he did not understand the push to achieve such density through dramatic zoning changes that would alter the face of the neighborhood. Pedro Perez , 1571 Olive Street, spoke in support of the amendments before the council. His family was attracted to the neighborhood by its character and did not want to lose that. He was present to show support for the neighborhood association and for the amendments. He did not want to see the neighborhood change as that would make his family consider moving. At this time, he thought the neighborhood was a good place to raise his children. David Hinkley , 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, opposed the amendments before council. He believed that the amendments were overkill as a means of controlling the adverse effects of infill. He believed the amend- MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing ments were drafted in a manner contrary to the City’s statutes because they did not take into account the City’s Growth Management Study policies, seven of which he believed were applicable in this instance. The amendments did not consider the impact of the de facto delay caused by Ballot Measure 37; in this case, the amendments would sunset before the measure could be fully implemented. Mr. Hinkley maintained that the amendments were also contrary to two statewide planning goals, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan, the neighborhood refinement plan. Because of the lack of consistency with those adopted policies, the amendments failed to meet the approval criteria. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for questions or comments from the council. Ms. Bettman asked the time line for the development of infill standards. Ms. Harding indicated the draft plan for the compatibility standards project identified a target date of September 2008 for city-wide standards. Ms. Bettman requested that staff return with a motion including text that provided for a sunset date congruent with that target date when the council considered the ordinance for action. She also requested text that made the ordinance effective on adoption. Ms. Bettman said the neighborhoods indicated no opposition to density but wanted it done right. She agreed with that sentiment. She referred to an article that day in The Register-Guard regarding a new development on a greenfield site zoned low-density where lots of 4,500 square-feet to 13,500 square-feet were permitted. She asserted that if density was important in the inner city, it should be important throughout the urban growth boundary, and urban core neighborhoods should not be burdened with more density than they had while new developments enjoyed lower densities. She asserted that “it was not a balanced formula.” Mayor Piercy thought Ms. Bettman brought up a good point. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Lidz recommended the council pick a date certain for the sunset date. Mr. Poling suggested a sunset date of January 1, 2009. Mr. Poling also supported making the ordinance effective immediately. Ms. Taylor concurred. Ms. Taylor expressed admiration for the neighborhood association for its work in protecting the neighbor- hood and thanked the neighbors for their work. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances; Amending Sections 4.083 And 4.084 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Sections 6.750 and 6.753 to that Code Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Anita Sullivan , 3745 Emerald Street, spoke in favor of controls on noise and noted her annoyance at people working on weekend projects that made noise. She wanted the full force of the City behind her when she confronted those people about the noise they made. Kevin Jones , 4740 Wendover Street, spoke to what he considered the inefficiency of leaf blowers and the pollution created by two-stroke engines. He recommended the council ban leaf and mulch blowers in two years’ time by imposing strict day and time limits on their use. He suggested that the council allow parking lot cleaning companies to register with the City and receive a one-year grace period so that alternative tools could be found by those companies. He suggested that by year three of a ban, neighborhood-friendly, ecologically sound alternatives could be found. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 4 Public Hearing Susan Polchert , 3143 Riverplace Drive, noted her objections to the use of the leaf blowers due to noise and the air pollution they created. She said that three days a week, someone was using a leaf blower on her block, forcing her to keep her windows closed. Often blowers were used for three hours at a time in her neighborhood and there were still bits of leaf and debris in the streets. She did not think the decibel level of blowers could be compared to conversation. Jerry Oltion , 750 Brookside Drive, thanked Ms. Taylor for introducing the topic and council for consider- ing it. However, he did not think the noise ordinance before the council would do what was needed as it would “rubber stamp” the status quo and not prevent noise pollution. He said if council would not grant a ban he hoped it would support alternatives. He thought something would work if the City committed to enforcing it. He said leaf and mulch blowers were conveniences, not necessities, and that convenience was bought at the expense of others. He thought a realistic noise limit, if enforced, would be useful, as well as restricting them to the hours suggested by Mr. Jones. He also suggested a muffler retrofit program where owners could exchange noisy mufflers for quiet mufflers. Doug Wilson , 35890 Bain Lane, Creswell, sweeper, discussed his company’s services and asked the council to consider his firm’s livelihood as well as the livability and cleanliness of Eugene. There was not enough time to do the work his company did with brooms alone. Harry Hayes , 25804 Wiggins Lane, Veneta, a parking lot sweeper, said his company could not do its job without blowers. His firm kept Eugene the clean, nice city it was. The time restraints being discussed made it difficult for his company, as it was not possible to get into most commercial parking lots before 10 a.m. or after 7 p.m. David Andrews , 2670 City View Street, favored noise limitations because of the impact of excessive noise on hearing. His own hearing was damaged to the degree he could not hear without an aid. He agreed the default for Eugene should be peace and quiet. He had a leaf blower and a lawn mower but they were electric and made much less noise than a gas blower. He anticipated an increase in deafness from such equipment. Ed Page , 26538 Pearl Road, a board member of the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association and the local Lane County chapter president, said his association was opposed to new decibel limits and ban on leaf blowers. He asked how the City would enforce that ban given that most blowers used by the landscape industry already met Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Reducing the decibel level meant reducing power, thus increasing the time needed to do a job. Mr. Page pointed out the costs of lesser or no equipment would be passed on to the consumer, which he anticipated would lead to an outcry, particularly among those on fixed incomes who used landscape companies for landscape maintenance. He questioned if Eugene’s attempt to dictate what equipment was used by the industry was restraint of trade. Marvin Cowley , 1284 Frogs Leap Lane, suggested that everything in life was a tradeoff. He sold leaf blowers and he acknowledged they were noisy. He said that the question was whether people were willing to rake their yards for two to three hours or complete the job in a few minutes. He asked if residents were willing to pay landscape firms three times as much to do the job because the job would take three times longer than before. Mr. Cowley also asked if residents who did their own work, particularly those senior citizens or people on fixed incomes with only Saturday available to them, would be willing to spend all that day doing work that would take only a few moments with power equipment. He believed the ordinance was MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 5 Public Hearing a first step toward outlawing power equipment in Eugene. Mr. Cowley spoke of antiquated ordinances that did not make sense and suggested that the ordinance before the council was such an ordinance. Dick Nokleby , 1699 North Terry Street, #237, owned and operated Eugene Power and Street Cleaning Company. He said his trucks went out at 8 p.m. and were back by 4 a.m. His firm’s business was 90 percent commercial with the work done at night. He suggested that if residents had a problem with blowers, it was because of the way they were operated. Mr. Nokleby said they did not have to be run full out all the time. He observed that he had never had a noise complaint in 25 years of doing business. Jonathan Cowley , 4065 Eddystone Place, opposed the banning or further restriction of leaf blowers and blower trucks because the people who used leaf blowers were hired by local residents who were elderly or on fixed incomes and could not do the work needed themselves. If leaf blowers were banned, landscape maintenance costs would increase for those residents, who would either pay the extra cost or hire landsca- pers who would not follow the rules. Jim Dodson , 35503 Brabham Road, Pleasant Hill, owner of MidState Industrial Service, a commercial sweeping business, said blowers were an invaluable tool for the sweeping industry. Blowers enabled operators to reach and access places, which was important because the City’s parking lot design standards had made many parking lots difficult to sweep without blowers. Blowers were fast, economical, and clean. Mr. Dodson said his company used scheduling strategies to avoid noise issues in jobs that border on residential areas. Most of his firm’s sweeping was commercial and took place away from residential areas. Areas bordering residential areas were swept early in the evening or during the day. It was extremely rare for his company to receive a noise complaint in Eugene. His company used the quietest blowers available and at least three models were rated at 65 dBA. Standard blowers were rated about 79 dBA. Mr. Dodson estimated that 98 percent of the blowers being used were the louder blowers. His company did not want any complaints from customers or their neighbors. He thought the existing ordinance was effective and adequate. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, maintained that people did not go downtown because of the leaf blowers that were used every morning. He said that leaf blowers moved allergens around. He asked that the “sound shed” of the river be considered. He suggested that disadvantaged youth be put to work downtown cleaning the downtown with brooms. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She asked for council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor thought the issue of leaf blowers was a serious problem. She had been unaware of how many commercial enterprises used such blowers, and had not considered the issue of air pollution, although that seemed obvious. She said the noise created by such equipment was problematic with regard to hearing loss. Ms. Taylor could envision a compromise that limited the hours of operation for such equipment and that required the use of equipment with the lowest possible decibel. She recognized the problem of enforcement but said that was an issue for all laws. She thought that people were entitled to some peace and quiet at all times of the day. Ms. Taylor noted that she requested that text be developed for a motion to amend the ordinance in regard to limiting decibel limits and times of operation. Ms. Taylor thanked all who spoke. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 6 Public Hearing Mr. Poling referred to page 327 of the meeting packet, which contained the draft ordinance, specifically subsection (g), Commercial and Industrial Noise. He asked if that subsection exempted the commercial application of such equipment in commercial and industrial areas such as shopping centers. Mike McKerrow of the Land Use Management Section explained the subsection in question would not provide an exemption; the subsection was intended to protect residential properties from any type of activity on commercial and industrial properties that created noise exceeding 60 decibels. He clarified that the text related to the one-hour equivalent was different in that it intended to average the sound received from the receiving property line. Mr. Poling asked that text be prepared for a motion that that created an exemption for the application of street sweepers and blowers in commercial and industrial areas during the proposed hours given the difficulty of accessing large parking lots during regular business hours. Ms. Ortiz suggested the ordinance may also impact City operations given that street sweepers operated at night. She questioned whether technology existed to further muffle such equipment. She thought such technology should be an obtainable goal but she did not want to limit people’s ability to work. She thought it would be beneficial if residents were willing to pay for manual labor but she did not think they were, particularly when they had big yards. Ms. Ortiz felt the yet-to-be formed Sustainability Commission should examine the issue and make a recommendation to the council. She thought the jobs provided by the sweeping industry were important and believed the actual issue before the council was how to maintain community livability. In response to Ms. Ortiz’s comments, Ms. Solomon pointed to the section exempting City, County, and State employees, and their contractors. She thought it was unfair for the City to be exempted from the provisions of the proposed ordinance. She thanked Mr. Dodson for his comment about the fact the City’s parking lot design standards were contributing to the problem. She pointed out that the trees now required for such lots drop leaves, which needed to be picked up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4900 Adopting Amended System Development Charge Methodology for Parks System; Affirming Systems Development Charge Methodologies Adopted by Resolution Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and Repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County and Homebuilders Construction Company, recalled her written submittal prior to the first hearing on the topic in January 2007. She thanked council for considering her comments about the need for adjustments to the neighborhood acquisition ratios and hoped they would be incorporated into the methodology. Ms. Cuellar said she worked on the State systems development charge (SDC) statute over several legislative sessions. The State statute was a collaborative effort between the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon counties, special districts, some municipalities, and the Oregon Home Builders Association. The original statute was submitted by those groups together and every amendment to the statute had been done cooperatively between them. The intent of the SDC statute was that new construction would be charged for the increased demand that a new structure would place on public infrastructure, in this case, parks. To the extent new construction would cause additional use of a park, the SDC was appropriate. Ms. Cueller said MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 7 Public Hearing she had never been able to find an appropriate nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial development and did not think one existed. She recommended a solution by which a larger part of the SDC was allocated to pick up the cost of nonresidents visiting parks. Ms. Cuellar expressed concerned about the 20-year project list because it was so speculative. From now on, developers would pay a piece of every single park project on the 20-year list, and it was highly unlikely current residents would ever pay for all parks projects. Terry Connelly , representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, said the chamber supported parks, recreation, and open space which made a positive contribution to the community’s quality of life, but believed that it was only one contributor in that regard. A healthy economy, he said, was also important to quality of life. Mr. Connelly said the chamber did not support charging a parks SDC to nonresidential development. The City could not demonstrate that commercial and industrial development created a demand for parks. Office buildings for professional services, art galleries, health care clinics, restaurants, banks, hardware stores, and clothing stores do not create a demand for parks and should not be charged an SDC. Mr. Connelly said the chamber objected to charging thousands of dollars in parks SDCs to new businesses as it could prove to be possible disincentive for compact urban development, redevelop- ment, and downtown revitalization. Existing public and private land providing hundreds of acres of open space were not taken into consideration when future demand for parks was calculated for parks in the PROS Plan; thus, the parks SDC was artificially set. Mr. Connelly objected to charging parks SDCs on nonresidential development if the money was to buy lands otherwise needed for jobs and housing inside the urban growth boundary. The large scale purchase of land considered in the PROS Plan would have a major impact on buildable lands inventory but the City would not account for that impact nor the future costs to maintain all the land acquired in part with SDCs. Michael Roberts , 1919 Meyers Road, said he was a member of the City’s Public Works Rates Advisory Committee and its Green Building Committee. He expressed disappointment with the City Council. Mr. Roberts said the Rates Advisory Committee, which was a disparate group of citizens representing many differing points of view, worked together to twice reach unanimous agreement about the application of the parks SDC to industrial and commercial lands, and the council rejected the recommendation. He asked what a committee had to do for the council, and why anyone should serve on a committee if that was the way committees were listened to in Eugene. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street,wanted to know if the funding in question would facilitate redevelop- ment in the Riverfront Research Park. He also wanted to know if there was a tie to funding to a “green street” on Franklin Boulevard being proposed, which he believed was a boondoggle. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, supported assessing SDCs to commercial and industrial uses because he believed any park located within a quarter mile of a business or offices would be used by the employees of those businesses. Any reasonable person would conclude that and pointed to the Parks Blocks as evidence that the proximity of businesses contributes to the use of parks. He believed that Eugene businesses were “getting a free ride” and should pay their equitable share of the costs of maintaining City parks. Jim Welsh , 2139 Centennial Plaza, Springfield, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, expressed appreciation for the City’s attempt to spread the costs of building parks out to more parties. However, he MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 8 Public Hearing did not believe there was a nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial development. Mr. Welsh said the PROS plan was an overly ambitious plan with regard to its 20-year plan and that it did not adequately speak to the need to fund ongoing administration, maintenance and operations costs of new and proposed parks. He opined that it should have been reduced to a more affordable size and the parks and open space inventory should include the river greenway, west Eugene wetlands, and school properties involved in recreation programs to reduce the need to seek more SDC funding. David Hinkley , 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, a member of the Rates Advisory Committee, said there was a nexus between a park and a commercial use if a company’s softball team played on a field or an employee picked up lunch on the way to a park. There was a commercial demand on parks, but to get from that nexus to its fair apportionment was a problem. Mr. Hinkley suggested that alternatively, the council consider including hotels and motels in the list of residential uses as the only difference between those uses and an apartment was the length of one’s stay, and that the City forego on collecting from commercial enterprises. He did not agree with splitting neighborhood parks out from the methodology. He asked why facilities such as baseball fields and racquetball courts were not called out separately. There being no more requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for council questions and comments. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hinkley for their remarks and indicated his continued opposition to charging commercial and industrial uses an SDC for parks. Ms. Bettman said it became evident during the council’s discussion of the transportation system mainte- nance fee (TMSF) that 50 percent of the people who work in Eugene do not live in Eugene. She questioned what percentage of people who shopped in Eugene also did not live in Eugene. Ostensibly, she suggested, if Eugene had regional shopping centers and regional retail uses, one could assume that many of those shoppers do not live in Eugene. She asked for numbers to quantify that assumption. Ms. Bettman believed there was an obvious nexus between office and commercial uses and the parks SDC because of the “mere fact” that 50 percent of the people who work in Eugene do not live in Eugene. That meant when an office or commercial building was constructed, it would result in the employment of people who then required the City to increase its capacity to parks to serve those people, who were not residents. She perceived a very direct nexus and wanted a number to justify that conclusion. Fred McVey, engineering data services manager did not have any numbers to offer. He explained that the nexus staff used was an intercept survey of park users; the survey found that 16-½ percent of park users were not Eugene residents. Ms. Bettman thought that a “modest percentage” but the chamber and homebuilders were denying the validity of the nexus. Ms. Taylor said that, “obviously, if people work here, they are going to use the parks.” She saw a connection between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial uses. Also, Ms. Taylor asserted that parks such as those developed for Olympic events have been shown in many communities to increase business development. Mr. Clark said he understood that many of those surveyed were riding their bicycles through City parks. He suggested that those using the parks were transportation system users and not parks users. That fact skewed the survey results for him. If SDCs were supposed to represent the impact and the equitable funding of services, businesses need water, stormwater, sewer lines, streets, and wastewater to exist; they did not need parks to exist, and therefore did not see the nexus. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 9 Public Hearing Mr. Zelenka asserted it was disingenuous to say there was no nexus between businesses and parks. He said it was clearly not the case. He averred that businesses located next to parks had higher property values than businesses not located next to parks. Ms. Solomon said when she worked in Springfield she had never visited a park in that community. She went to Springfield to work. Her husband worked in Springfield and never visited a park. He went to Springfield to work. She opposed assessing businesses an SDC for parks based on speculation that their employees created an impact on a park. Mr. Pryor thought the Rates Advisory Committee had done a great job in a short amount of time. He said that growth occurred geographically and drove the location of parks; ideally, one would link the two through the parks SDC to the geography where the growth was likely to occur and not to areas where growth did not occur. However, that would be quite complex, so the committee had to take a generalization and make it fit fairly, and he thought it did a good job of accomplishing that. He thought there might be a nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial uses, but he questioned whether that nexus was strong and direct enough to justify charging an SDC to those uses. Mr. Pryor observed that he heard people say their property values decreased when recreational facilities were located nearby, although he questioned that. Mr. Pryor did not see a sufficient nexus to start charging SDCs to nonresidential uses at this point. He preferred to stay with the current ordinance because of the more clear nexus between residents and parks. Ms. Ortiz believed there was a connection between business and park use. She attended an event at Molecular Probes recently and talked to an employee who shared that they owned a business in Carlsbad, California, and bought land around their business to make it more park-like. She thought it would be great if businesses were willing to do that. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Authorizing HUD Section 108 Revenue Bonds Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman wanted to amend the ordinance so that it did not go into effect until there was a project attached to it. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services indicated that was possible. Ms. Bettman said she understood that a project would come back to the council and a hearing would occur, but it would occur before the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. She wanted to amend the ordinance so that any public hearing on any project occurred before the City Council. She requested text to that effect. Mr. Lidz questioned what was left of the authorizing ordinance if the council did not want it to take effect until there was a proposed project. He did not know the difference between that and merely postponing adoption of the bond authorization until a project was at hand. Ms. Bettman determined that one alternative would be to postpone adoption of the ordinance or include a provision in the ordinance detailing that once there was a project, the public hearing would occur before the City Council. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council could do a project-specific ordinance instead of enacting the ordinance before it. Ms. Bettman requested both options be prepared. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 10 Public Hearing Ms. Bettman said the ordinance indicated there was the possibility the City might need to waive some of its debt policies. She asked if council could include a provision in the ordinance that projects funded with the bonds be consistent with the City’s debt policies. Ms. Cutsogeorge recalled that staff had discussed with the council the potential the City might want to lend funds to a private party, which would require it to waive its debt policies. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s question, Mr. Lidz said the result of including such a provision requiring consistency with City debt policies in the ordinance would simply be to make the process of changing the policy more difficult. He said that the council could never adopt an unchangeable policy because future councils could not be bound in such a way. Including the provision in an ordinance required different procedures to change the ordinance. Ms. Bettman wanted to see text amending the ordinance that the City would seek projects that were consistent with current City debt policies. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business Licenses; Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance 20337; and Amending Section 3.467 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Gary Heldt , 3477 Onyx Street, supported the proposed increase as the most equitable way for citizens to pay for street maintenance. He was disappointed that the increase was not more and suggested that passage of the ordinance at this time might undermine the work of the subcommittee working on street maintenance options. He thought the gas tax should be the City’s sole source of non-bondable, preventive maintenance funding. He thought that gas was relatively cheap and citizens had a responsibility to help move the country to energy independence and a reduction in green house gases. Terry Connelly , 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber did not support the increase in the gas tax at the level proposed and for the purposes specified in the ordinance. The increase would be directed toward operating costs rather than the backlog of street repairs. He believed that those costs needed to be prioritized in the City’s General Fund budget. Mr. Connelly said that if enacted, the increase would give Eugene the highest gas tax in the state at eight cents per gallon, five cents higher than any other city in Lane County, and eight cents higher than communities without local gas taxes. He said the magnitude of the increase would put Eugene dealers at a competitive disadvantage with other dealers located outside the community. The chamber was also concerned about the timing of the increase. Mr. Connelly recalled the chamber’s offer to help with a campaign for a bond measure or capital levy to apply to the $100-plus million backlog in street repair work. However, an increase in the gas tax before a decision had been made to send a measure to the voters would confuse the public and likely doom the changes of winning an election. He said the public did not distinguish between the backlog and ongoing operations of streets, and would view a sharp increase in the gas tax as fixing the problem. Mr. Connelly further pointed out that the State Legislature was considering a state gas tax increase with a portion to be distributed to cities for street operations and maintenance. He suggested the City Council wait and see the results of the state legislation before considering a local gas tax increase. He also asked the council to be mindful of the consequences of an increase in the tax, as he anticipated there was a breaking point and at some future time that will lead to an initiative petition to repeal the gas tax. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 11 Public Hearing Ron Tyree , 4000 Spring Boulevard, Tyree Oil, indicated his opposition to an increase due to the competi- tive disadvantage it would give Eugene stations . Gas stations at the edge of the community would be able to charge eight cents less than Eugene stations. Dealers in Eugene would not be able to pass the costs on to the consumers, which would hurt the companies and their employees. It costs money to maintain and operate stations, and if profit margins go down, companies’ investments will go elsewhere, he said. Mr. Tyree indicated that it did not make sense to put money in a gas station where projects would be less. Alternative fuel projects would also be affected. Jim Welsh , Eugene Association of Realtors, 2139 Centennial Plaza, concurred with the remarks made by Mr. Connelly and Mr. Tyree. He suggested that if gas stations were driven out of the community, Eugene residents would drive to Springfield for gas. He suggested that the council consider other alternatives, such as bonding, to improve existing streets, many of which were an “embarrassment” to the community. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, suggested the increase was the start to an overall funding system. It needed to be one piece of a broad plan to address system sustainability. He noted the council subcommittee charged with working on the issue and suggested it be open to consideration of the entire transportation system. Bonding, he said could help with the backlog and fix potholes, but it was not an ongoing funding source, necessitating the need for consideration of such things as gas taxes. He encouraged the council to forward unpopular measures to the public to ensure that the system was sustainable. Paul Romaine , 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 927, Portland, represented the Oregon Petroleum Association, said his organization was opposed to a local gas tax but not to an increase in the state gas tax of 14 cents per gallon to be distributed to the cities. He said that local gas taxes resulted in balkanization because people were aware of where gas was the cheapest. He asked that the City work with the legislature to ensure a State gas tax increase. He said his association agreed it would attempt to refer each local gas tax increase until the State began to pay attention to the issue. If the council went forward, he asked it to refer the ordinance. th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, submitted testimony pertaining to the work of the council subcommittee working on transportation issues. Mr. Bonnett supported an increase in the gas tax to address the growing backlog of road maintenance. He believed that an increase of 15 cents per gallon would be needed to completely address the backlog, and suggested more work was needed. He thought the subcom- mittee would have to develop alternative funding sources because the City would not accomplish what was needed through the gas tax alone. He suggested that timing was important because additional funds now would fund needed overlays that would make future road repairs less onerous. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and in light of the time remaining, asked the council to e-mail their questions to staff. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Creating a Sustainability Commission; Amending 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding a New Section 2.380 to that Code Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Krisna Khalsa , 70 Lawrence Street, strongly encouraged the council to create a Sustainability Commission. He believed the proposal would result in a citizen organization similar to the Lane County Food Policy MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 12 Public Hearing Council, an organization with which he was involved. It would create an opportunity for the two organiza- tions to communicate and cooperate. He thought the proposal a reasonable response to the work of the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI) Task Force. He said communities, not just businesses, need to organize themselves around sustainable issues. He suggested that sustainability could stimulate noncom- mercial transactions among residents that would make the community more sustainable over time. He encouraged the council to look at the work being done by the Portland/Multnomah Food Policy Council. He suggested the council tie that together with the recent peak oil initiative passed by the Portland City Council, which he considered a wonderful model. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Street, supported the proposal and the council and mayor’s efforts toward sustainability. He expected great things of the commission and hoped it did not shy away from controversy or issues that might cause difficulty because he thought that absolutely necessary. He also hoped that the proposed commission did not avoid whole-system thinking. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, acknowledged he was a sustainability skeptic, but recommended several online essays, including “When Sustainable Development Comes to your Town” and “Monsanto’s Approach to Sustainability.” He said that big companies do things that seem environmental, and he feared large companies could try to dress themselves up as being sustainable and in return receive assistance from the City. He suggested a list of unsustainable companies be prepared by the City. He recalled an article from the Eugene Weekly explaining an SBI recommendation to ensure that developments in the Riverfront Research Park would be sustainable, which he feared could lead to the development of land that would otherwise not be developed. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, Eugene, representing the Friends of Eugene, supported the creation of a Sustainability Commission and said it was a positive step forward. He commended the council. Bob Doppelt , 31740 Fox Hollow Road, who assisted with the SBI Task Force, commended the council for the ordinance, which he believed was consistent with the SBI Task Force’s recommendations. He thought the commission would help the community address things such as climate change as well as help it to take advantage of emerging business opportunities. Mr. Doppelt suggested that the council ensure that the proposed commission has a diverse membership. He also asked the council to refrain from “throwing every issue” that could not be addressed in another venue at the commission, as the commission had several SBI recommendations to address initially. He commended the council for considering the ordinance. Kathy Ging , 2878 Harris Street, asked that the council consider resource depletion and the demand placed on local resources such as electricity and water by large businesses and residences. She noted local companies with a business focus that relied on petroleum and recommended the council “re-examine Hynix.” She asked, “Family wage jobs at what price?” Companies that provide family wages may want to come to Eugene but could contribute to global warming and resource depletion. She called for companies that were more creative and wisely used remaining resources. Ms. Ging further called for a land use planning advocate on the commission. She suggested the use of solar energy and asserted that the Eugene building code was unfriendly to solar energy. She also called for more education about solar energy and suggested the slogan “Eugene: the Solar Energy Capital of Oregon” as she believed it would attract the right people and businesses. David Funk , 30806 Blanton Heights, endorsed the ordinance before the council and thanked the council for letting the SBI process proceed unhindered. He asked that the council consider the “triple bottom line” and remember the initiative was started as an economic development initiative to make businesses better and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 13 Public Hearing support the families that depended on them. He asked that the initiative not become merely an environ- mental initiative. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called on the council for questions and comments. There were none. Ms. Ortiz moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the proposed ordinance by re- vising Section 2.381(b) to read “businesses that produce sustainable products and services.” Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 14 Public Hearing